Bank Jobs Wanting Five Year Work History

EconomicsGirl

I've just got a job with a bank - they did require 5 years employment history and gaps of over 3 months explained. I also had to sign to say that I didn't do anything illegal in the gap. Mine was proven by bank statements - there is an option to choose unemployed not claiming benefits but you will be asked to prove this via bank statements and they go through everything coming into your account. They are not concerned with anything going out but every entry going in you are asked to explain so I had to explain the Child Benefit etc. So you can get a job in finance with gaps but you will need to prove that you really weren't working in the gaps. You can get old bank statements from your bank. Obviously if you've changed banks this could be difficult. I do think its allowed though as a stay at home Mum would be unemployed but not claiming benefits. Could be different banks have different rules but my one were fine.

TrickyWicky

Emmzi wrote: »

Go sign on for the NI!

Other than that, how were you thinking of showing what you have been doing? Do you volunteer at all?

Nope (I have done in the past though - about 4/5 years ago). I wasn't planning to show anything really, I've been out of work (I walked out) like many people, I didn't think companies would hold it against me that I wasn't costing them more tax!

an9i77

OP I think you may have your issues confused. The recruitment agency didn't put you forward because you have a patchy work history - this is something a lot of employers, banks or not, don't like to see as it can cast doubt on an employee's commitment, and unfortunately in these straitened times when there are loads of people applying for each job, they are well within their rights to use such a criterion to decide who to interview or not (I know in your case the recruiter made the decision not to interview, not the company, but she is providing this service to them as part of her role.)
Yes a lot of employers want to see a checkable five year history but as others have said, this is to ensure that you haven't been in jail/doing anything illegal. Not only banking - Its common in the airline industry that they have these checks to eliminate terrorists, for example. But in this case so long as you can prove where you've been for the past five years you will pass the check. For example I had quite a patchy work history due to doing a lot of short term contracts (this was a career choice) but because the company I applied to didn't mind about that and had offered me a job based on my experience, it wasn't an issue when my five year references check was done.

Truegho

And that's not all, for the accursed agency to which I originally applied for this job totally wasted my time by having me go through all the usual annoying, lengthy hoops (e.g. registering, filling in countless forms etc. etc.). They even had me having to ask the Jobcentre for a full five year history of all my periods of unemployment.

And THEN - after all that hoopla - they turn around and say that the Jobcentre form is not as relevant as the five year work history, and that they cannot put me forward after all blah bleedin blah.

I will never EVER EVER bother with these accursed, totally useless agencies ever again! They are a total waste of space, and should be shut down - NOW.

an9i77

Fair enough if you are sure you can always get work without using an agency, but a lot, if not the majority of employers will use agencies to recruit staff, so if you won't ever use a recruitment agency again then you will seriously limit the number of jobs you can apply to when you are job seeking. You may be cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

Truegho

an9i77 wrote: »

Fair enough if you are sure you can always get work without using an agency, but a lot, if not the majority of employers will use agencies to recruit staff, so if you won't ever use a recruitment agency again then you will seriously limit the number of jobs you can apply to when you are job seeking. You may be cutting off your nose to spite your face there.

Yes, I do take your point. A lot of the jobs - esp admin roles - ARE advertised by agencies. However, I have also heard a lot of stories that a great proportion of these roles are fictitious, which I think is disgraceful.

If agencies adopted a more sympathetic and helpful attitude towards us jobseekers - and tried to assimilate the fact that, after all, we ARE humans too - instead of treating us like little more than impersonal numbers, then perhaps their reputation would start to gain some favourable comments. Unfortunately, the way things are at the moment, I can hardly see any significant change in the commission-crazy, pro-employer mindset of these recruitment consultants in the forseeable future.

Well, after all - as they so often say themselves - they ARE a business, aren't they?

EconomicsGirl

I came to the conclusion a lot of agency jobs were fictious, often copied adverts of real jobs. When I applied directly I had about a 50% to 75% interview rate, applied through agencies about 5% if that. I would focus a search on direct applications though still apply through agencies as well - it may depend on your field but in mine I got the impression that use of agencies had gone right down - maybe to cut costs.